Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bobo192


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it .

Bobo192
final (34/5/11) ending 19:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

– Long-standing and proverbially tireless contributor (a year and a half, and over 17k edits ). At no point the subject of controversy as far as I'm aware: seems very unlikely to abuse the tools, or to embark or a counter-consensus-fest. I can only assume never previously nominated due to low-key and uncontentious nature of his contributions. Enmop this individual directly, I'm sure it'll be put to good use. Alai 17:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

This came as both a shock, and a delightful surprise. I'd be happy to accept this nomination and I thank Alai for considering me capable.

Support
 * 1) As per nomination. Alai 19:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support definitely. KI 19:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I seen some of his work around --Jaranda wat's sup 21:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support One of the most hardworking and selfless wikipedians that I have come across. Pretty sure that he won't abuse the mop. Tintin (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Nearly on attitude alone, not likely to abuse tools. If theres some catchup needed on policy issues his respectful and serious attitude will make sure it's done properly and without controversy. Rx StrangeLove 01:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Rob Church (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Solid support as per his great namespace edits Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 03:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support -Normally do not support non-interactive editors, but with high edit summaries, excellent demeanour, humility, I am compelled to waive the usual administrative requirements of project-space and talk-space edits.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, I have no reason not to. I would hope he does increase his community participation, though.   Proto    ||    type    10:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support A hardworking editor. Deserves to be an admin. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support 17k edits is a lot, and he has managed to not be involved in any problematic episodes, which seem to be happening lately. Non-interaction is a non issue to me.TruthCrusader 20:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support per very gracious handling of oppose votes below. The admin tools are not an award, rather given in the trust that they will be used wisely for the good of the project. As long as a newbie admin understands that and uses appropriate caution, I don't see a problem with lack of experience in user and project space for the moment. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support for his hard work in the main space and handling of the oppose votes abakharev 00:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong Support. Per nomination. In one and one half years this user has done more than his share, and uses edit summaries at least 85% of the time; as well as contributed greatly to the project as a whole. Эйрон Кинни  03:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support, solid editor with solid edits. Has a good attitude, has a brain, deserves a mop. Project space edits aren't terrific but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a process-o-tron. Lord Bob 05:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, contributions are good and usually uses edit summaries. Admin tools would clearly be of beenefit. Wezzo 08:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Definite support.  Long-time, steady contributor; adminship should be no big deal. +sj + 19:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Interiot 23:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support, excellent contributor who will probably use talk pages much more in the future, now that their importance has been thoroughly impressed on him by the "oppose" votes below. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support  Joe I  05:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Good editor, and I think passing a vote of confidence like this one will help Bobo become more comfortable in user interactions (if that makes any sense). -Colin Kimbrell 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I understand. Thank you. Bobo. 18:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Lack of talk space does not bother me; admins can come in various flavors. I'm sure you will put the tools to good use. --Cymsdale 00:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support--Jusjih 00:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Elf-friend 07:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Nothing wrong with the quiet, helpful type. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, very good contributor who will no doubt make an impressive admin. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 04:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) SupportdoN&#39;t belieVe in CensOrshIp 18:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Mjal 21:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Punkmorten 22:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) support this helpful person Yuckfoo 01:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support once you become an administator, you will find that communication/interaction will be your most effective, benevolent tool. Rama&#39;s Arrow 23:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Neutral Weak Support due to lack of Project and talk edits, and for not stating the reasons for "an ugly start" .  Prodego  talk  15:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I had hoped I could stray away from having to do that, but okay. I had userpage issues at the very beginning, where I wasn't sure what kind of material I was meant to include on my page. This initially made me stray away but eventually I came back with some kind of sensible order. N00b mistakes, basically. Bobo. 17:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that is nothing to be ashamed of, everyone makes mistakes. (At first I thought all users could unblock, and that Fred Phelps was some POV editor :-), also, I had an argument with Purplefeltangel(I mistakenly sent her a message), and a disagreement with User:BD2412 over a policy I didn't understand)  Prodego  talk  01:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to support due to explanation of "ugly start". Prodego  talk  01:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. A devoted editor who hasn't stepped on any toes with his current tools. The limited experience in project space doesn't bother me with someone this conservative in style, who'll take the time to learn the policies and protocols. ×Meegs 13:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, because I say so. J I P  | Talk 21:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Strong Oppose Like Zsinj said below (under neutral). I'm sure Bobo192 is a fine editor but there is more to Wikipedia than JUST article editing. The Projects namespace edits are lacking sufficiently with only 98 edits. Also, he has almost no communication with other users, with only 313 user talk edits and 69 mainspace talk. If expands his edits outside articles, he would make a fine admin. M o e   ε  20:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your further explanation, Moe. Much appreciated. Bobo. 20:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you didn't take that too badly. I still think your a fine editor but maybe you should have waited and got more edits elsewhere before going for adminship. M o e   ε  20:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. User interaction is certainly the one thing I'm most frightened of and has been the one thing I've been most willing to work on since starting to contribute more frequently. No hard feelings. Bobo. 20:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, more interaction would be handy, as the admin tools are a rather powerful thing. Although calling one's vote "Strong Oppose" in this situation is too put it too strongly I think. :) Most things look fine. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Oleg. Bobo. 22:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Some people are better suited at certain positions than at others. This is an example of one of those cases. Эйрон Кинни  03:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Admin tools are principally there for cleaning up and dusting down and, sometimes, throwing out. Most decisions, policies and practises that result in such things occur, or occurred, in Wikipedia: space and related adn so a strong familiarity with it, as the nebulous mass of the community at large is important in an admin. Interaction with the users you have just dusted down or cleaned up after occurs frequently, and often with some irritation on their part. Thus, a steady record of good interactions is important since not winding users up is kind of useful (despite the manner in which some extant admins conduct themselves). Since the editor says above that the is "...most frightened of..." interactions, I think that some de-frightening would be very useful &mdash; most editors are nice people. -Splash talk 02:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: I wouldn't not interact, I'd just be extra-cautious in doing so. I feel interaction is the most important thing as an admin, and my fear is of just being 100 percent certain before I step out and do such a thing. I believe this is more important than instant reaction. Bobo. 05:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Sorry Bobo but i really find it hard to support adminship for an editor who shys away from the talk page to the extent you have done to date. Yours is an extreme example. David D. (Talk) 07:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Tough to do with an editor this active and ubiquitous, but I must oppose. I can live with being cautious over Talk pages but the absence of Wiki space contributions is too much. Less than a hundred out of 17K for Project. Only 14 to Project talk and nothing that shows any engagement with policy or "admins-should-know-about-this" stuff. Obviously very conscientious with edits and with summaries and an easy support once experience in Wiki space is shown. Marskell 15:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as above, lack of project and talk edits. Would support otherwise. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. Although this edit has a lot of good useful edits, I don't see very many project edits. I'm sure this editor wouldn't abuse the mop and bucket, but with very few contributions to the Wikipedia namespace, I can't find justification that the editor is familiar with the policies and methods of admin actions. --ZsinjTalk 19:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. This is practically the exact opposite of User:Ian13's RfA below; that lack of interaction with other users is a concern for me.  -- tomf688 {talk} 22:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. How could you have 17K edits (My word!) and not a single image upload? You're a fine editor, which is why I can not oppose, but I don't see a need for adminship. Zsinj said what else I have to say. Ifnord 05:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Great guy, but with less than 100 Wikipedia namespace edits (and most of those probably just in one WikiProject, I cannot vote support unless he becomes more familiar with Wikipedia.  D a Gizza Chat  &#169; 06:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. As per above. psch  e  mp  |  talk  08:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral per above. Looks like a great editor and answers to comments have been mature, but I am unable to personally support due to lack of interaction. Essexmutant 10:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral due to lack of experience in the project namespace and apparent lack of use of minor. Stifle 23:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral per lack of edits in Wikipedia namespace. Nacon kantari   e |t||c|m 21:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral towards support per most neutral voters, no specific decline reason, edits are remarkable, lack of process and communications participation stuck me to neutral though. xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  04:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral. per Xaosflux basically. Raven4x4x 00:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Neutral leaning support per Zsinj. I perhaps don't place the same level of importance on the talk and project edits in handing out mops, but in this case they just strike me as a little too far out of balance to say yes. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 03:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 96% for major edits and 95% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 44 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 19:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See Bobo192's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. I have previously done a lot of work on Cleanup by Month, and feel that although I have become swept up in doing other tasks recently, I would focus my attention on these activities given the chance to do so.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I have helped WikiProject Cricket with around 400 articles on cricketing names who I believe it is imperative they are included in Wikipedia articles of their own. I've also added a fair few names from the world of FA Premiership football. My most recent complete article is Both Sides of an Evening, though I seldom have written a non-biographical article from scratch entirely on my own with no impulse from elsewhere (though In Our Image and Too Good to Be True represent the exception rather than the rule).


 * The only article I can think of from the top of my head which I have helped to make Featured standard is List of English words containing Q not followed by U, which is now a featured list, and I do also feel a sense of achievement in terms of helping to remove graphic pictures from Self-harm, way back in the depths of last year.


 * I'll admit I had an ugly start here, for reasons I don't wish to repeat, because I felt so much of it was out of character, but hopefully now I'm entrusted enough to be responsible. Responsible, eh? Sounds a bit daunting..!


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. I don't really suffer from stress while editing Wikipedia, due to my vision of a bright future for Wikipedia, in terms of community interaction. I believe conflict is only caused by those who wish to cause conflict, thus making a Wikipedian's job (one which they foist upon themselves by their own will and timeframe) unenjoyable. I often feel that if I'm causing myself stress by working on Wikipedia, I will take as long a break rather than be forced out of my capability to edit. This has not happened for a good while and is more-or-less always the fault of myself attempting to make a big deal out of individual decisions or problems.

Questions from NSLE: The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).


 * 1) You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
 * 2) While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
 * I don't believe I could possibly overrule the majority. I don't believe I'm the kind of person for whom that would be the easiest of tasks. More pointedly, I don't believe it's my right to carry out the will of my own opinion, without due concensus from others, and those articles being Speedy Deleted as patent nonsense are pretty unsalvageable in the first instance. This appears to be the case in all but a very few number of situations I have witnessed.
 * 1) When closing out a certain minor WP:AFD, you realise that there is a suspicion of sockpuppetry by a well-known user, or even an admin. Upon approaching the editor, he denies it, but the clues he leaves are too obvious to ignore. His sockpuppet vote did not affect the outcome of the AFD, but what would you do? Would you call him out?
 * It would be hard for me to force it out of him. If there is no suspicion from anyone but myself, I am not going to follow through any channels at all. I've had a dispute in the past where the power of concensus (including my own point of view) has been the most important attribute towards it, until the moment when it collapses underneath new evidence. This is a hard thing for me to deal with when I am on the wrong side and yet decide to further pursue matters.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.